On 22/08/14 07:07 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>> To continue your analogy, should car companies have stopped changing
>> after the 20s? I mean, the cars then got you were you needed to go, right?
>
> The point is to abstract an interface so you can make changes behind
> it without breaking the things already built around it. You can
> always add things without breaking anything that already worked for
> your community of users. If you didn't care about that yourself,
> you'd be recompiling a gentoo weekly instead of being here.
To echo John, this is a major release. It's where, when needed, things
can change and break backwards compatibility. If a change like this
happened as a y-stream release, sure, I'll grab my pitch fork along with
you.
It's not realistic to expect backwards compatibility to last forever.
The sysv init stuff had a good long run, but it was time to change. Now,
you're welcome to disagree with me (and the archives are littered
already with this argument), but in the end, it changed. A major version
was the right place to do it, and now it is done.
So this brings me back to my original point... Unless you plan to wage a
war against things like Network Manager, systemd or what have you in the
faint home of reverting in the next major release, you don't have a lot
of viable long term options.
Learn the new ways or fade from relevance.
I say this without passing judgment on the merits of the new or old
ways, simply as a fact of life. Even if you did hold out hope for, say,
RHEL 8 to return to the old ways, you will have a hard time avoiding
EL7. It will almost certainly be adopted wide-scale and that will
provide inertia.
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
